Roseann Castillo v. State ( 2008 )

i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-07-00834-CR
Roseann CASTILLO,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2003-CR-7365A
Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 3, 2008
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Roseann Castillo was indicted for possession with intent to deliver cocaine in an amount of
four grams or more, but less than two hundred grams. Castillo pled nolo contendere to the charge
in exchange for the State’s recommendation that adjudication be deferred. Pursuant to the plea
agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Castillo on community supervision. The
State later filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging Castillo violated various conditions of her
community supervision. Castillo pled true to one of the allegations. The trial court adjudicated
Castillo guilty and sentenced her to twelve years in prison.
Castillo’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which
he raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The
brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
Castillo was provided a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was informed of her right to
review the record and file her own brief. Castillo has not done so.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with
counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Castillo’s counsel and affirm the
trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1997,
no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Castillo wish to seek further review of this
case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary
review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion
for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX . R. APP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary
review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary
review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
See id. R. 68.4.
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Do not publish
-2-